Indirect Feedback

This study attempted to systematically inspect the impact of direct and indirect corrective feedbacks on the writing ability of EFL learners when using product/process based instructions. To do so, 110 female EFL learners, between the ages of 15 and 18, were randomly assigned into four experimental groups to receive four different kinds of treatments, namely product-based instruction with direct feedback, product-based instruction with indirect feedback, process-based instruction with direct feedback, and process-based instruction with indirect feedback. The treatment took 10 sessions. Analyzing the results of the two writing tests (pretest and posttest) showed that direct feedback had significant effects on EFL learners' writing in process-based instruction and product-based instruction but indirect feedback failed to show any significant effect on EFL learners' writing in both process-based instruction and product-based instruction. The results also indicated that direct feedback had significantly better impact on EFL learners writing in the process-based instruction than product-based one. 

This study compared the effects of teacher-provided written corrective feedback and manipulation of resource-directing dimensions of task cognitive-complexity along +/- Here and Now condition on the grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ writing products. There were 45 participants in the study who were randomly assigned to three experimental groups. All the participants were first given a prompt for the pre-test of writing, and then each group received its own intervention (direct written corrective feedback, indirect written corrective feedback, and task manipulation) for four sessions during four weeks. Subsequently, all the groups took the pre-test prompt of writing for their post-test performance after which the data were collected for the statistical analyses and fed into SPSS. The findings of the study confirmed the significant effects of direct written corrective feedback on increasing the grammatical accuracy of learners’ writings. There were implications, then, based on the results, highlighting the role of meaningful context of task application in the classroom.

The extent to which teachers’ written corrective feedback (WCF) is conducive to ESL learners’ improvement has been discussed since Truscott’s claim in 1996. The mentioned debate continues because there has been lots of contrastive research studies with different results. This paper presents the results of a 2-month study of the effectiveness of WCF to 65 low intermediate Iranian learners. In the first phase, the students were divided into two groups of hedged group and control group, which received uncoded feedback. The learners produced 8 pieces of writing (Nelson Test was given to students to homogenize the groups). The first piece of writing was considered as the pretest and the 8th piece of their writing was considered as their posttest. Independent and paired sample t test were used to analyse the data statistically. The result of comparing the mean performance of the two groups in posttest indicated that the probability value was less than .05 (p = .000 < .05) which means that the mean performance of the two sets of scores in post test is significantly different and the hedged form feedback group has outperformed the one who received uncoded feedback.

This study tried to inspect and compare any possible effects of immediate and delayed metalinguistic and indirect feedback on the level of WTC of Iranian EFL learners in task performance. This research was a quasi-experimental work with 120 Participants (63 males and 57 females) who were divided into four groups: 30 students as the direct-immediate feedback group, 30 students as the direct-delayed feedback, 30 students as the indirect-immediate feedback, and 30 students as the indirect-delayed feedback. Different instruments were utilized to collect the required data, including the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), the WTC scale (McCroskey, 1992), and a set of two-way exchange tasks. After homogenizing the participants, based on the OPT test, the participants took the WTC scale as a pretest. As the treatment, the indirect immediate feedback group participants reformulated the errors into the correct form as soon as they committed errors. In the indirect delayed feedback group, the teacher noted the errors and the student’s name to provide feedback for that specific student. In the direct metalinguistic immediate feedback group, the participants were provided with both explanations and examples of the correct form of errors they committed. In the metalinguistic delayed group, the teacher wrote notes on the error types and the students’ names to provide explanations andcorrect examples for specific students. The WTC scale was readministered in the post-test and the scores were recorded. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the pre-and post-test data. The result of the data analysis showed there was an interaction between the timing and the type of feedback regarding their effect on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ WTC.

Given the significant role of corrective feedback and individual differences in the process of foreign language acquisition, in the present study we set out to investigate the effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on impulsive and reflective EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Sixty learners were selected and randomly assigned to three groups including two experimental groups and one control group. The first experimental group received indirect feedback, the second experimental group received direct feedback, and the control group received no feedback. The instrument employed in this study to determine the impulsivity or reflectivity of the participants was Barratt's impulsiveness scale. Writing accuracy was scored by the scale provided by Karim and Nassaji. The results revealed that both direct and indirect corrective feedbacks were effective in reducing the written errors of all the earners. Moreover, no significant difference was found between direct and indirect corrective feedbacks in terms of increasing writing accuracy. Although there was no significant difference between the impulsive and reflective learners’ performance, the mean scores showed that the latter seemed to benefit more from indirect type of the feedback while their counterparts showed better performance after receiving direct feedback. The findings have implications for EFL teachers and learners.